Skip to content
Hub Nexus

No author yetClaim it

Version 1Updated 2 min read

Support

The prior section shows that a vector space can be understood as an unrestricted linear combination of some of its elements— that is, as a span. For example, the space of linear polynomials \{ a + b x \ | \ a , b ∈ ℝ \} is spanned by the set \{ 1 , x \}. The prior section also showed that a space can have many sets that span it. The space of linear polynomials is also spanned by \{ 1 , 2 x \} and \{ 1 , x , 2 x \}.

At the end of that section we described some spanning sets as "minimal", but we never precisely defined that word. We could take "minimal" to mean one of two things. We could mean that a spanning set is minimal if it contains the smallest number of members of any set with the same span. With this meaning \{ 1 , x , 2 x \} is not minimal because it has one member more than the other two. Or we could mean that a spanning set is minimal when it has no elements that can be removed without changing the span. Under this meaning \{ 1 , x , 2 x \} is not minimal because removing the {}2 x and getting \{ 1 , x \} leaves the span unchanged.

The first sense of minimality appears to be a global requirement, in that to check if a spanning set is minimal we seemingly must look at all the spanning sets of a subspace and find one with the least number of elements. The second sense of minimality is local in that we need to look only at the set under discussion and consider the span with and without various elements. For instance, using the second sense, we could compare the span of \{ 1 , x , 2 x \} with the span of \{ 1 , x \} and note that the {}2 x is a "repeat" in that its removal doesn't shrink the span.

In this section we will use the second sense of "minimal spanning set" because of this technical convenience. However, the most important result of this book is that the two senses coincide; we will prove that in the section after this one.

Where this page came from

This page was imported from Wikibooks. From “Linear Algebra” on Wikibooks, by its contributors, under CC BY-SA 4.0. Changed here: set as a page; navigation and edit links left out; each image under its own licence, credited in its caption.

Nobody has written it yet — it is the source material at a new address, which is why search engines are asked to skip it and why no one earns from it. It is up for grabs: take it on, and it is yours to rewrite and to earn from.

Comments

Spinner Logo

Next in Linear Algebra

CC BY-SA 4.0
For the right to left implication assume that $\overset{→}{v} ∈ [ S ]$ to show that $[ S ] = [ S ∪ \{ \overset{→}{v} \} ]$ by mutual inclusion. The inclusion $[ S ] ⊆ [ S ∪ \{ \overset{→}{v} \} ]$ is obvious. For the other inclusion $[ S ] ⊇ [ S ∪ \{ \overset{→}{v} \} ]$, write an element of $[ S ∪
CC BY-SA 4.0
Definition 1.1 A **basis** for a vector space is a sequence of vectors that form a set that is linearly independent and that spans the space. We denote a basis with angle brackets $⟨ \overset{→}{{β}_{1}} , \overset{→}{{β}_{2}} , … ⟩$ to signify that this collection is a sequence[1] — the order of th
CC BY-SA 4.0
In the prior subsection we defined the basis of a vector space, and we saw that a space can have many different bases. For example, following the definition of a basis, we saw three different bases for ${ℝ}^{2}$. So we cannot talk about "the" basis for a vector space. True, some vector spaces have b
CC BY-SA 4.0
We will now reconsider linear systems and Gauss' method, aided by the tools and terms of this chapter. We will make three points. For the first point, recall the first chapter's Linear Combination Lemma and its corollary: if two matrices are related by row operations $A ⟶ ⋯ ⟶ B$ then each row of B i
CC BY-SA 4.0
This subsection is optional. It is required only for the last sections of Chapter Three and Chapter Five and for occasional exercises, and can be passed over without loss of continuity. This chapter opened with the definition of a vector space, and the middle consisted of a first analysis of the ide
CC BY-SA 4.0
Linear combinations involving only fractions or only integers are much easier for computations than combinations involving real numbers, because computing with irrational numbers is awkward. Could other number systems, like the rationals or the integers, work in the place of $ℝ$ in the definition of